CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA. Code Enforcement, Adjustments and Appeals Board Meeting August 9, 2016

Transcription

1 CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA Code Enforcement, Adjustments and Appeals Board Meeting The Code Enforcement, Adjustments and Appeals Board met in formal session at 3:00 P.M., Tuesday,, in the Alcazar Room at City Hall. The meeting was called to order by Judi Schuyler, Chairman, and the following were present: 1. ROLL CALL Judi Schuyler, Chair Clyde Taylor, Vice-Chair CeCe Reigle John Capra Martha Mickler Dennis Wissel Stephen Simmons - Absent Staff Present: Denise May, Esq., Assistant City Attorney David Birchim, Director, Planning & Building Department Curtis Boles, Code Enforcement Inspector Robert Vanmierop, Code Enforcement Inspector Sandra Partin, Administrative Coordinator, Recording The City staff was sworn in. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (July 12, 2016) Mr. Taylor moved to approve the minutes as presented. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Schuyler and approved by unanimous voice vote. 3. DISCLOSURE OF EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS Ms. Reigle disclosed that she had driven past the Spanish Street property, and had spoken with a parking attendant. Mrs. Mickler disclosed that she also had walked past the property at Spanish Street. Mrs. Schuyler disclosed that she too had driven past the Spanish Street property, but had no conservations with anyone. Public hearing was opened. B.J. Kalaidi, 8 Newcomb Street commented to the following: On August 5, 2016, the property owner of 7 Bridge Street was present before the magistrate to appeal what this Board had previously ordered, and she expressed her displeasure of the owner s arrogant attitude at that meeting

2 and the ruling to reduce this Board s fine that had been imposed. She also expressed that she wished to have the CEAAB meetings televised. Public hearing was closed. 4. VARIANCES/TREE REMOVAL Item 4 (a) Gregory W. Teisan 78 Spanish Street Removal of a 20 Oak tree City Code Chapter 25, Section Mr. Vanmierop reported the following: (He presented a current photograph of the tree in question) The Planning and Building Department received application for the removal of two oak trees at 78 Spanish Street. After application had been submitted, a property survey revealed that perhaps the tree to the west was not on that property, so the applicant changed their request to only remove the tree to the east. The tree was a healthy 20 Oak and estimated to be at mid-life. Intention for removal was to increase several parking spaces behind the building at 78 Spanish Street. Applicant was present for questions. Gregory Teisen, 48 Willow Drive, St. Augustine Beach, Florida, was present and testified to the following: That they leased the property from the bank, but it was owned by the Basilica. The challenge that they were facing was parking around the trees that were currently located on the lot, explaining that they could only park small cars in that space due to maneuverability. Mrs. Schuyler commented that she did not wish to approve removal of a healthy tree for the parking of vehicles. Mr. Teisan reported that the tree was healthy, but did pose limitations on the parking. Mr. Taylor asked if the property was residential or commercial. Mr. Teisan responded the property was a private residence that was leased by an LLC, owned by he and his wife, and they were operating it as an Air B&B consisting of three units, with the need for three parking spaces. Mr. Wissel inquired what number of vehicles could be parked, should the tree removal be denied. And questioned if they had measured out the proposed spaces. Mr. Teisan responded that they currently have three spaces, but it was dependent on the size of vehicles. And he reiterated the safety factor of 2

3 maneuverability around the trees. He also confirmed that they had measured out the proposed spaces. Mrs. Mickler asked for confirmation of the space rented by the Cathedral/Bank, was it only to give access to the back yard. Mr. Teisan responded that was correct. Mrs. Schuyler asked if the spaces were for the guests at the Bed and Breakfast. Mr. Teisan replied affirmative and explained that the tree created a bottleneck effect on the parking. Mr. Wissel asked if the removal would allow for the addition of three spaces. Mr. Teisan replied that they currently could get three spaces, however what they were trying to obtain was safety in the parking and maneuvering of those vehicles. Mrs. Mickler stated that she was not favorable to the removal of a healthy tree, which was not causing damage to property. Ms. Reigle referred to a similar case which this Board had heard, and commented that as a commercial endeavor perhaps they could charge a parking rental to their guests, or utilize parking in other lots that were in close proximity. Mr. Wissel stated that he was back to his original question of whether they were currently able to park two vehicles. Mr. Teisan replied that they currently were able to park three vehicles, but the concern was the safety and liability of maneuverability. Public comment was opened. B.J. Kalaidi, 8 Newcomb Street, commented to the following: That she attends tree meetings and urged the Board to remember that various cases such as this had come before the Board. She understood where the Board was going with this case, and reminded them of other options for parking and asked that they deny the application. Public hearing was closed. Mrs. Schuyler commented that she was not in favor of removing the tree. And urged the applicant to consider other options. Mr. Taylor echoed Mrs. Schuyler s comments. Mrs. Schuyler moved to deny the removal of one 20 Oak tree. The motion was seconded by Mr. Capra and approved by unanimous voice vote. 3

4 5. REVIEW OF PREVIOUSLY HEARD CASES Item 5 (a) Gates of St. Johns 1000 S. Ponce de Leon Boulevard City Code, Chapter 3, Section 3-23 (a) (1), (j) (7) Release of Lien, Fine Paid In Full Mr. Boles reported the following: On July 14, 2015, this property had been found in violation by this Board. On August 11, 2015 the property had reappeared before this Board and a fine of $500 was imposed in the form of a lien which was recorded with the St. Johns County Clerk of Courts. On June 29, 2016, the Planning and Building Department was in receipt of the full lien payment. Staff requested the Board issue an Order Releasing Lien. Ms. Reigle moved to remove the lien and close the case for compliance. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Mickler and approved by unanimous voice vote. Item 5 (b) New Venture, Inc. 10 Anastasia Boulevard City Code, Chapter 3, Section 3-24 Vacant on-site commercial signs and sign structures prohibited. Mr. Boles reported the following: On July 12, 2016 the CEAAB continued this case to allow the application to the Historic Architectural Review Board (HARB) to be heard on July 21, On July 21, 2016, the HARB continued the application to the August 18, 2016 meeting. Staff requested the Board continue the case until September 13, 2016 to allow the application to be heard by the HARB. Mrs. Mickler moved to continue to date certain of September 13, The motion was seconded by Mrs. Schuyler and approved by unanimous voice vote. 4

5 6. REVIEW OF NEW CASES Item 6 (a) Matthew Pennington 193 Riberia Street City Code, Chapter 8, Section Building Code Variance/Flood Control Variance Mr. Birchim reported the following: The case at 193 Riberia Street had been administratively closed by the Staff, because the applicant had received a property appraisal which removed the substantial improvement. Ms. Reigle asked for clarification as to why staff had recommended approval of this variance, was it because an existing building was of a certain age, unlike that of the last variance application for a building addition that was denied. Mr. Birchim explained the process of the flood control variances to the Board, noting that this particular property had not received the report from the appraiser prior to the application to the Board. Mr. Capra stated that he understood the question to be, was the variance being recommended because it was a contributing building to the historic district. Mr. Birchim replied that the other case in question was a new addition to a building that was required to be raised to the base flood elevation. The City attempts to save historic structures, but require additions to come up to current code. Mrs. Schuyler stated that she was surprised that the applicants could bring in an up-to-date appraisal. Mr. Birchim explained that the appraisals are pegged at just below what they consider market value. So bringing in an appraisal when there is a slight margin does the trick. He further explained that the property was a masonry structure on a stem wall construction, they do not have the option to raise the building to place a pier foundation beneath. Ms. Reigle stated that she wished to have clarification to the Board, as it what was different from the last case that had appeared for a variance to the base flood elevation. And she inquired as to the age of the building. Mr. Birchim confirmed that the building was older than 50 years and contributing to the Lincolnville District. Mr. Capra commented that after the last meeting, he read that they were redoing the FEMA requirements, which would then move thousands of homes currently in the floodplain out. Mr. Birchim commented that was correct, but added that the maps had not yet been adopted by the county. And he explained the process adding that it would be an estimated 6-8 months for that process. 5

6 7. CITY ATTORNEY ITEMS Mrs. May addressed the issue of 7 Bridge Street that had been raised in the public comment of this meeting, and she explained to the Board what was drafted at that meeting. 8. OTHER BUSINESS Ms. Reigle asked Mr. Boles what happened to the old awning building that was demolished on Riberia. Mr. Boles responded that he was unaware of what was proposed to replace the structure, but commented that the public response had been positive. 9. REVIEW OF CONFLICT STATEMENTS FROM PREVIOUS MEETING None. 10. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 3:35 P.M. Judi Schuyler, Chairperson Sandra Partin, Administrative Coordinator 6